It's as if he never left
By now you have heard that Macha is back and with others saying how bad of a decision it is, I can help but feel that my suspicions have been verified.
In my post, "The Company Man," I talked about how Hatteberg had been playing a lot more than he should have and that he should have been placed on the DL. Through a lot of the message boards and other blogs, you will see that a lot of the blame of 2005 is placed on Macha. This blame is unfounded as it should only be going to the top, squarely at Beane.
By bringing back Macha, it tells me that most of the decision that were made during the 2005 season had Beane's hands all over them. If Hatteberg playing too much, or Ellis not playing in the earlier part of the season, or even Chavez not moving from the third spot until Crosby came back, would have been grounds to fire Macha, it seems that these issues were perfectly fine with Beane to the point of retaining Macha. And Beane is the one with a pseudo-lifetime contract with the A's.
The only thing that Beane could not control to a varying degree is the bullpen usage and that is where Macha failed at a manager. It was almost as if he spaced out during the games and allowed pitchers to stay in the game for too long. In actuality, that was his biggest mistake. Many times, as document by my post, Cruz Control, Macha would allow a reliever to create a tense situation and then bring in another reliever at the most inopportune time. Yet this is the only credible strike against Macha that has a tangible difference from him being re-hired and what another manager would do. Everything else is under Beane's control.
So honestly, if someone wants to talk about lineups and how Ken Macha is the one at fault, they are completely mistaken. Think about it this way: When Tejada was struggling in 2003 and had a thumb injury, Ken Macha talked about how it was best to move him from the third spot. Now, with Chavez struggling and his shoulder sore, Macha is talking about how a lineup change won't matter. And we all know that Chavez is a Beane favorite so there is no doubt in my mind that Beane had far more leeway with Chavez than Tejada.
Sometimes, conventional thinking can prevail.
In my post, "The Company Man," I talked about how Hatteberg had been playing a lot more than he should have and that he should have been placed on the DL. Through a lot of the message boards and other blogs, you will see that a lot of the blame of 2005 is placed on Macha. This blame is unfounded as it should only be going to the top, squarely at Beane.
By bringing back Macha, it tells me that most of the decision that were made during the 2005 season had Beane's hands all over them. If Hatteberg playing too much, or Ellis not playing in the earlier part of the season, or even Chavez not moving from the third spot until Crosby came back, would have been grounds to fire Macha, it seems that these issues were perfectly fine with Beane to the point of retaining Macha. And Beane is the one with a pseudo-lifetime contract with the A's.
The only thing that Beane could not control to a varying degree is the bullpen usage and that is where Macha failed at a manager. It was almost as if he spaced out during the games and allowed pitchers to stay in the game for too long. In actuality, that was his biggest mistake. Many times, as document by my post, Cruz Control, Macha would allow a reliever to create a tense situation and then bring in another reliever at the most inopportune time. Yet this is the only credible strike against Macha that has a tangible difference from him being re-hired and what another manager would do. Everything else is under Beane's control.
So honestly, if someone wants to talk about lineups and how Ken Macha is the one at fault, they are completely mistaken. Think about it this way: When Tejada was struggling in 2003 and had a thumb injury, Ken Macha talked about how it was best to move him from the third spot. Now, with Chavez struggling and his shoulder sore, Macha is talking about how a lineup change won't matter. And we all know that Chavez is a Beane favorite so there is no doubt in my mind that Beane had far more leeway with Chavez than Tejada.
Sometimes, conventional thinking can prevail.
posted by Genaro at 1:52 AM
<< Home